The Kung Controversy: An analysis of Jochen Katz's recent tirade倚天之争：一个约亨卡茨最近长篇大论分析
Some time ago, MENJ前段时间，MENJ时间 1 一 published出版 Hans Kung's view汉斯昆的看法 of the Prophet的先知 Muhammad穆罕默德 (P) along with a brief editor's note. （P）的沿一个简短的按语。 It seems that Jochen Katz was quite outraged at this看来，约亨卡茨在这个很愤怒 2 2 but more so at the “editor's note” and soon after但更在“编者的话”，不久后 published a “response”出版了“反应” . 。
In short, Katz is saying that Kung only expressing his own personal opinion about the Prophet Muhammad (P) and does not represent all Christians.总之，卡茨说，成功是唯一的表达自己的关于先知穆罕默德（P）的个人意见，并不代表所有的基督徒。 He objects to the editor's following statement (underlined by Katz): “.他）对象编辑器的以下声明（卡茨强调：“。 . 。 . 。 Hans Kung conveys the Christian opinion on Prophet Muhammad (P).” Of course the editor did not argue that Hans Kung is representing all the Christians and has recently corrected his statement so that it now reads: “…Hans Kung conveys a Christian opinion on Prophet Muhammad (P).” Certainly, there is no one view among Christians regarding Prophet Muhammad(P) and so, just as Hans Kung does not speak for all Christians, Answering Islam certainly does not speak for all Christians. 汉斯昆传达更正内容：他的语句，这样，它现在的“ 意见上的基督教先知穆罕默德 （P）的。”当然，编辑器并没有说汉斯昆是代表所有的基督徒，并在最近...汉斯昆传达一个基督徒见先知穆罕默德（P）的。“当然，没有和这么一）查看基督教徒之间关于先知穆罕默德（磷，就像汉斯昆并不代表所有的基督徒， 伊斯兰教回答当然不能代表所有的基督徒。
Katz writes:卡茨写道：
- MENJ has great difficulties to answer our arguments against Muhammad's claim to prophethood. MENJ有很大的困难，回答我们的先知穆罕默德的论据，反对的说法。 Not being able to respond with anything that is truly convincing, he seemingly tries to oust us from this debate by claiming that our arguments are not genuinely Christian, and therefore Christians and others should not listen to us. 不能够作出回应，这是真正有说服力的东西，他似乎试 图推翻我们我们从这次辩论，声称我们的论据是不真正的基督徒，因此基督徒和其他人不应该听。
This is a senseless argument.这是一个毫无意义的争论。 It does not follow that you are “ignoring” or plan not to address issues simply because you, on one occasion, bring to light someone's view on a particular subject. bismikaallahuma.org deals with a variety of subjects related to Islam (and这并不是说你是“忽视”或计划解决的问题不只是因为有你，有一次，把特定主题上查看曝光别人的。伊斯兰教bismikaallahuma.org与交易相关的各种主题（以及 Christianity基督教 ) and therefore wide ranging papers are to be found therein. ），因此广泛的文件将在其中找到。 At times responses to Answering Islam are uploaded (and stated as such) and on other occasions, different papers are put up that do not relate to something presented within Answering Islam .有时反应， 回答伊斯兰教上传（如等表示）和在其他场合，不同的试卷张贴不回答一些涉及伊斯兰教内提出。 Katz, it seems, has a very difficult time understanding this.卡茨，看来，有一个非常困难的时期理解这一点。
On this instance, MENJ simply presented one particular Christians view regarding Prophet Muhammad(P) merely to show that not all Christians think alike or have the same views, opinions and beliefs about Prophet Muhammad(P).在这种情况下，简单地提出一个特别的MENJ基督徒的意见，认为先知穆罕默德（规划）仅仅是为了表明，并非所有基督徒认为相似或有相同的看法，意见和有关先知穆罕默德（P）的信念。 I don't see how Katz concluded from this that MENJ “seemingly” tried to “oust” others from the discussions by putting online the views of a Christian scholar.我不知道如何从这个卡茨认为MENJ“看似”试图“驱逐”，从网上讨论，通过把一个基督教学者的意见等。 Instead, this seems to be one of Katz's delusions.相反，这似乎是Katz的错觉之一。 Similarly, it is hard to see how he could come up with the wondrous conclusion that MENJ supposedly has “difficulties” answering the polemics at Answering Islam or that he is allegedly “not able to respond” to the polemics.同样，很难看出他如何能来论战与奇妙的结论，即MENJ理应有“困难”的论战在回答回答说，他是伊斯兰教或涉嫌“无法回应”的。 This is Katz's wishful thinking.这是Katz的一厢情愿。 In short, when MENJ published the views of one Christian, or that other time wrote a paper addressing an issue/topic not commented upon at answering-islam, it does not mean that he “seemingly” tries to oust others, or that he is ignoring something.总之，当MENJ发表一个基督教，或其他时间的意见，写了一篇文章讨论一个问题/主题没有评论在回答伊斯兰后，但这并不意味着他“似乎”试图推翻他人的，或者说他是忽略的东西。 The writers of Bismika Allahuma will continue dealing with missionary polemics, as it is convinient for them, and also continue presenting papers on other subject matters. Bismika Allahuma的作家将继续论战处理传教士，因为这是他们convinient的，并继续提出其他事项文件的主题。
Furthermore, Katz simply attempts to poison the well when he unleashes his subjective personal opinions regarding the effectiveness of MENJ's replies as if they are uncontested “facts” observable by all.此外，卡茨只是企图毒害，突然释放出他的主观关于MENJ的答复的成效，如果他们是无可争议的“事实”的所有观察到的个人意见。 Using the same type of “argument”, I can say: I think MENJ has done a fantastic job in exposing many polemics and that Katz and his friends have difficulties defending their claims, the historicity and integrity of the New Testament in particular, and are utterly incapable to respond with anything that is truly convincing. So, will Katz and his friends stop writing after reading this opinion of mine and depart from the scene fully convinced that they are doing a rather lousy job because I say so?使用参数“同一类型的”，我可以说： 我觉得MENJ做了出色的工作，并揭露许多争论和Katz和他的朋友们有困难，维护他们的说法，历史性的旧约和新的完整性，特别是根本无法作出反应，这是真正有说服力的东西。因此，将Katz和他的朋友看完这篇停止写我的意见和离开现场这样说完全相信，他们正在做一个相当糟糕的工作，因为我？ Such types of “arguments” only reveal Katz's inner frustrations.的“论据”这种类型只透露Katz的心中的郁闷。
Katz also writes:卡茨还写道：
- The use of this article by MENJ is nothing but the fallacy of appeal to authority. 该MENJ使用本条只不过是权威的谬误提出上诉的。
Well, is there something “wrong” in presenting someone's views and opinions for the reading of others?那么，有什么“错误”中提出为他人阅读别人的看法和意见？ MENJ was, after all, not using Kung in support of any argument, but simply presenting one Christian opinion. MENJ毕竟是，不使用任何论点，西贡，而只是提出一个基督教的意见。 There is nothing wrong with this.没有什么错。 Therefore he was not committing the fallacy of appeal to authority.因此，他并没有犯了诉诸权威的谬误。 Furthermore, is appealing to an authority always wrong?此外，为吸引权威永远是错的？ In the papers on Katz's own website, numerous Christian apologists, missionaries and orientalists are quoted as authorities in support of this or that argument.在对Katz的自己的网站的文件，许多基督教辩护士，传教士和东方的被引用在这个或那个论点当局。 So if Katz has no problems when it comes to appealing to authorities in arguments against Islam, then he should not object to Muslims when they appeal to authorities in support of their own arguments.因此，如果没有问题卡茨当谈到对伊斯兰教的论点诉求向政府部门，那么他应该不会反对时，他们呼吁穆斯林在自己的论据支持当局。 However, let me remind you again: since there are many views current among Christians regarding Prophet Muhammad(P), something that would not be denied by Katz, MENJ presented the view of one particular Christian scholar for others to read.然而，让我再次提醒你：由于中间有关于先知穆罕默德（规划），这会不会被剥夺基督徒卡茨目前很多意见，提出了MENJ一个特定的基督教学者别人看的观点。 Katz is reading too much into the paper on this occasion.卡茨在读太多到这次文件。
Katz says:卡茨说：
- Even if he had quoted and appealed to the Pope, this would still not exempt him from dealing with the facts and arguments. 即使他曾援引并呼吁教皇，这仍然不能免除他的论点和处理的事实。
Of course, and where did MENJ say or indicate that he would ignore dealing with the alleged “facts” and “arguments” because he is quoting Kung here did he state or imply that his presentation of Kung's view “settled” everything once and for all so that there was no longer any need for him to address the polemics on Answering Islam or any other site for that matter? Nowhere. Katz is “engaging” with suggestions that were simply never made or even implied.当然，和在哪里MENJ言行表明，他会忽略的所谓“事实”和“论据”，因为他是引述龚这里他明示或暗示打交道，他的介绍对公认为“解决”一切一劳永逸所以，有没有必要再为他解决回答其他伊斯兰或任何网站为此事上的论战？ 无处。卡茨是“搞”与暗示的建议被提出，甚至根本不会。 Really, Katz…take it easy and don't try to read what is not there.真的，卡茨...放轻松，不要试图读什么是不存在。 As readers will see, the contributers to Bismika Allahuma will continue refuting missionary polemics and exposing — what we believe are — distortions, despite the presentation of the views of Hans Kung.正如读者会看到，Allahuma贡献者Bismika将继续批驳和揭露传教士论战-我们认为是-汉斯昆扭曲，尽管提出的意见的。 Moreover, in the future, we will present similar views and opinions of other Christians as well for the reading of others.此外，在今后，我们将提出类似的看法和意见，以及其他基督徒为别人读。
Katz writes:卡茨写道：
- We never said that Muhammad is not a prophet because the Vatican or some other Christian authority denies him that position, but we evaluated Muhammad's claims to prophethood on the basis of the biblical criteria for a true prophet. 我们从来不说，先知穆罕默德是不是因为梵蒂冈或其他一些基督教权威否认他那个位置，但我们评估准则，一个真正的先知穆罕默德的圣经要求的基础上对先知的。 Muhammad clearly fails those. 穆罕默德显然失败的。
First, neither did MENJ say or imply that Muhammad(P) is a prophet “because” the Vatican or some other Christian authority says so, nor did he imply that Katz and his friends should accept Muhammad(P) based on Kung's view, so what is Katz talking about and “responding” to?第一，也没有MENJ说或暗示穆罕默德（P）是先知“，因为”梵蒂冈或其他一些基督教权威这么说的，他也不意味着Katz和他的朋友们应该接受穆罕默德（规划）的基础上成功的看法，所以什么是卡茨谈论和“回应”了吗？ Therefore Katz's comments are utterly baseless.因此Katz的评论是毫无根据的。 Essentially, Katz is making a huge fuss over the presentation of one Christians view and is letting his imagination run wild to give his audience the wrong and misleading impression about our editor's stance.从本质上讲，卡茨正在对一个基督徒查看演示文稿一个巨大做文章，就是让他的想象力像脱缰的野马，让他的观众对我们的编辑的立场错误和误导性的印象。 His purpose, it seems to me, is to deliberately simplify the editor's brief note through a systematic distortion and construction of red herrings.他的目的，在我看来，是故意歪曲简化通过系统建设和红色鲱鱼编辑器的简要说明。
Second, Katz again presents his personal subjective opinions as if they are “facts” observable by all.二，卡茨再次提出了他的个人的主观意见，如果他们是“事实”的所有观察到的。 We certainly do not believe that he has made any sensible arguments and we will continue addressing his polemics on this website, letting the readers decide for themselves.我们当然不相信他有否合理的论据，我们将继续处理本网站上的论战，让读者自行决定。 Nor has he “demonstrated” that the Bible is the inerrant word of God to act as credible criteria for any matter.他也没有“证明”圣经是神无误的话，作为对任何事情可信的标准。 For him to use the Bible as a “criteria” means nothing to Muslims since we don't accept the Bible and using ones scriptures in this manner only amounts to circular reasoning.对于他作为一个“标准”圣经穆斯林毫无意义，因为我们不接受以这种方式使用的圣经和圣经只占循环推理。
Katz writes:卡茨写道：
- Hans Kung's article does not deal with the arguments we have presented. 汉斯昆的文章不涉及我们所提出的论点。
Neither did MENJ claim or suggest that Hans Kung had dealt with any “arguments” on Answering Islam , so why is Katz giving the false impression as if MENJ suggested that Kung's paper addressed any or all polemics at Answering Islam ?也没有MENJ声称或暗示汉斯昆了伊斯兰教处理任何“参数”的回答 ，那么，为什么卡茨给予的假象，好像MENJ建议，区的文件处理论战伊斯兰教在回答任何或所有？ Katz can do nothing more than mislead his readers through the concoction of fictitious scenarios.卡茨能做的无非误导通过虚拟场景的堆砌他的读者。
Katz proceeds with his strange line of reasoning and ends:与他的推理和完怪行卡茨所得：
- Muhammad went even further, he worked hard to make the original conform to the copy be re-narrating the Biblical stories in a changed way. 穆罕默德走得更远，他努力使原本符合副本重新改变的方式叙述一个圣经故事研究。 This is discussed in detail in the article “I am ALL the prophets”. 这是中详细讨论的文章“我所有的先知”。
Again he shares with us his subjected opinions.他又与我们分享他受到了意见。 Now I do not plan to deal with the above referred paper here, but, to briefly comment, its message can be summed up as follows:现在我不打算与上述提到文件处理这里，但是，简单地评论，其信息可归纳如下：
Because the Bible says A and the Qur'an says B, the Qur'an is wrong because the Bible is the word of God and so it must always be right. 因为圣经说，古兰经说A和B的古兰经是错的，因为圣经是神的话的，所以必须始终是正确的。
I don't know about others, but I am not impressed with this line of argument.我不知道别人，但我不是用这种论点留下深刻印象。 From the Muslim perspective, similarities and differences between the Qur'anic and Biblical accounts is no problem at all since that only means that God has corrected the mistakes within the Biblical accounts and revealed the true accounts within the Qur'an.从穆斯林的角度看，共性与古兰经和圣经的帐户差异是没有问题的，因为这仅仅意味着上帝圣经的帐户内纠正的错误，显示在古兰经的真实帐户。 Christians might say “but this is circular argument, you have assumed the Qur'an to be inspired”, but the Christians have also conveniently assumed the Bible to be inspired and inerrant to put forth their arguments.基督徒可能会说：“但是，这是圆形的说法，你承担了古兰经得到启发”，但基督徒也承担了方便圣经得到启发和无误地提出他们的论点。
Putting aside our suppositions and beliefs for a moment, how can we know that the Biblical accounts are really “the original”?撇开了一会儿我们的设想和信念，我们又怎能知道，圣经的帐户真的是“原”？ What evidence is there to show the Bible is right in everything it says?有什么证据证明圣经是正确的，它说的一切？ I have not seen Katz and his friends present such evidence that we can all analyze.我还没有见过Katz和他的朋友提出这种证据，我们都可以分析。 They have simply and piously assumed the Bible to be “inspired” and thus “correct” no matter what, and so this assumption of “inspiration” is the bases of their arguments for the rejection of the Qur'an.他们简单而虔诚地假定圣经是“灵感”，从而“正确”无论什么，所以这样的“灵感”的假设是为古兰经拒绝他们的争论基地。 Not impressive.并不令人印象深刻。
Muslims have already started to refute such types of unimpressive “arguments” from the Christians and will continue to do so in the future.穆斯林已经开始反驳从基督徒乏善可陈“论据”这样的类型，并会继续做的，将来也如此。 For now现在 see these refutations看到这些驳斥 . 。
Now, let me repay Katz with the same favour by applying his example upon the New Testament:现在，让我偿还相同的应用有利于卡茨的人，在新约的例子：
Matthew and Luke re-narrated Mark in a changed way in their gospels by presenting a different “Jesus”. 马修和卢克重新叙述“马克在耶稣的方式改变他们的福音通过提出一个不同的”。 The author of the gospel of John went even further and re-narrated in a changed way the story of Jesus. 在约翰的福音书的作者走得更远，重新在一个变化的方式叙述耶稣的故事。 Paul went even further by re-narrating the entire salvation 保罗走得更远，重新叙述整个救恩 history 历史 in a changed way in his epistles. 在他的书信改变他们走去。
Welcome to Bismika Allahuma , your premier source of counter-missionary information from an Islamic perspective!欢迎来到Bismika Allahuma，您的传教士信息的主要来源反从伊斯兰的角度！ If you are new here, you may want to get regular updates via如果你是新这里，您可能想要通过定期更新 RSS feed RSS提要 . 。 Thank you for visiting!感谢您的光临！
- In his capacity as executive editor of Bismika Allahuma [在他的[能力Bismika Allahuma担任执行主编 back回 ] ]
- Perhaps what came across Katz's mind was “how dare a Christian say something positive about Muhammad(P)?” [或许在Katz的心里浮现的“你怎么敢一个基督徒谈谈穆罕默德（P）的积极意义？”[ back回 ] ]
